GR 151149; (September, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151149 ; September 7, 2004
GEORGE KATON, petitioner, vs. MANUEL PALANCA JR., LORENZO AGUSTIN, JESUS GAPILANGO and JUAN FRESNILLO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner George Katon filed a request in 1963 for the re-classification of Sombrero Island in Palawan from forest to agricultural land. The Bureau of Forestry certified the land as agricultural in 1965. Katon claims this gave him the exclusive privilege to apply for a homestead patent over the entire island. However, he never filed a homestead application. Instead, respondents Manuel Palanca Jr., Lorenzo Agustin, Jesus Gapilango, and Juan Fresnillo subsequently filed their own homestead applications over portions of the island. Homestead patents and corresponding Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued to them, with Palanca receiving his title in 1977. In 1998, Katon filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking the annulment of the respondents’ patents and titles on the ground of fraud and the reconveyance of the whole island to him. The RTC dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds related to the substitution of a deceased party. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals (CA) initially addressed the merits, but in its assailed Resolution, it acknowledged its error in doing so. Nonetheless, the CA motu proprio dismissed the complaint on the grounds of prescription, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner’s complaint motu proprio on the grounds of prescription, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to state a cause of action.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on the following grounds:
1. Failure to State a Cause of Action: An action for annulment of a homestead patent and the corresponding certificate of title is an action for reversion, which belongs to the State. The proper party to bring such an action is the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead. A private individual, like the petitioner, who claims no title to the land but only a privilege to apply for a patent, has no legal capacity to sue for annulment and reversion. His complaint, therefore, failed to state a cause of action.
2. Prescription/Laches: Assuming the petitioner had a right, his action was barred by laches. He slept on his alleged right for almost 23 years from the issuance of Palanca’s OCT in 1977, and for about 35 years from the certification of the land as agricultural in 1965, before filing his complaint in 1998. His inaction for an unreasonable length of time, without valid excuse, warrants the application of laches.
3. Lack of Jurisdiction: The allegations of fraud in the procurement of the patents and titles constituted a collateral attack on the titles, which is prohibited. A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the direct remedy is an action for reversion filed by the State. The trial court thus lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action as framed by the petitioner.
The Supreme Court held that where prescription, lack of jurisdiction, or failure to state a cause of action are apparent from the complaint, the appellate court may motu proprio dismiss the action to put an end to useless litigation. The petition was denied.